Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
They want to have a clean end to his era, so the logic is to let him carry the can and then let somebody new start afresh.
In that sense, somebody outside government has the best chance of doing well. So, back we are to Burnham.
However badly Labour do in the local elections, it doesn't affect the government's majority. Still time for them to regain the initiative in government.
Another relaunch after the locals incoming ?
What will that be, number four or five !!!!
If something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing multiple times!
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
So he'll try and get an extra year or two by promising to go quietly in 2027 or 2028?
I guess that would suit Rayner (waiting for HMRC) and Burnham (12 months to become an MP).
But, in terms of governance and leadership of the country, for what purpose? What does he hope to do in the next 12 months? Delay the Defence Investment Plan? Discourage business investment? Watch the university and local government funding situations drift closer to the brink? Poison the well so that his successor has a minimal chance of winning re-election?
It doesn't really seem to be worth the effort.
You know all the quiet pre-panic here about what happens in the next few weeks if Iran isn't sorted immediately, indeed, what may already be in the post.
Stick Starmer's exit announcement in the middle of that and consider those optics.
Is it possible that the announcement gets kicked down the road in those circumstances?
Those are the circumstances which would suggest the Cabinet (& others, such as Rayner and Powell) recognising the gravity of the situation and ensuring that there is not an extended leadership contest, so that a replacement for Starmer can be in place pdq.
It's not an argument in favour of leaving a ditherer with no authority in post.
My theory was Burnham had a deal sewn up hence why nobody had moved
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
They want to have a clean end to his era, so the logic is to let him carry the can and then let somebody new start afresh.
In that sense, somebody outside government has the best chance of doing well. So, back we are to Burnham.
However badly Labour do in the local elections, it doesn't affect the government's majority. Still time for them to regain the initiative in government.
Another relaunch after the locals incoming ?
What will that be, number four or five !!!!
If something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing multiple times!
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
One of the interesting things about the press, though.
The Mail, Express, Telegraph etc are much better at being loyal to their party than the Mirror and Grauniad. So the meaning is different- when a right wing hack tears into a Conservative, it's really serious. A left-wing hack doing the same to a Labour type is more 'dog bites man'.
Louise Haigh strikingly urges Starmer to come up with new plan to reform “unsustainable” welfare spending
“The projections are inconceivable at the moment, so we really want to encourage the government to come back and engage with the PLP” on how to make it “sustainable”
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
UK Security vetting and the security services are different things. No.10 would have been briefed by the security services separately. They may or may not have known about the "failure" of DV. But they will have been briefed separately on Mandelson by the security services.
You're quite right, I should have said UK security vetting.
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
And you don"t think this is bad for Starmer ?
I’ve done multiple headers saying this is bad for Starmer but there’s no smoking gun either today or yesterday that forces Starmer out.
Is there a risk for the LotO using up too much political capital on this?
Although I said Kemi was being very wise at the time (again), one of the luxuries of being LotO is you can have lots of terrible positions and switch them in the future and nobody cares...see Starmer.
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
And you don"t think this is bad for Starmer ?
I’ve done multiple headers saying this is bad for Starmer but there’s no smoking gun either today or yesterday that forces Starmer out.
Lord TSE, what’s your central protection for Starmer leaving year and most likely successor?
I will cover this in the morning thread.
Lord TSE, thank you for your quick reply.
I noticed your comment elsewhere on Vodafone. It is is quite evident the Three brand will cease to be fairly soon, Vodafone will buy out Hutchison’s share and Vodafone will be all that is left.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
The leaking is pretty clever in all honesty. It’s a fairly inaccurate view of events when they’re separate but it’s very effective in destroying Starmer.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
Need to get Wagatha Christie into the tight group.
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
And you don"t think this is bad for Starmer ?
I’ve done multiple headers saying this is bad for Starmer but there’s no smoking gun either today or yesterday that forces Starmer out.
Lord TSE, what’s your central protection for Starmer leaving year and most likely successor?
I will cover this in the morning thread.
Lord TSE, thank you for your quick reply.
I noticed your comment elsewhere on Vodafone. It is is quite evident the Three brand will cease to be fairly soon, Vodafone will buy out Hutchison’s share and Vodafone will be all that is left.
"Lord TSE" ???? Has there been a new peerage we've missed. Well deserved if so!😂 Order of the Shoe-in?
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
Need to get Wagatha Christie into the tight group.
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
And you don"t think this is bad for Starmer ?
I’ve done multiple headers saying this is bad for Starmer but there’s no smoking gun either today or yesterday that forces Starmer out.
Lord TSE, what’s your central protection for Starmer leaving year and most likely successor?
I will cover this in the morning thread.
Lord TSE, thank you for your quick reply.
I noticed your comment elsewhere on Vodafone. It is is quite evident the Three brand will cease to be fairly soon, Vodafone will buy out Hutchison’s share and Vodafone will be all that is left.
"Lord TSE" ???? Has there been a new peerage we've missed. Well deserved if so!😂 Order of the Shoe-in?
I would never accept a mere lordship, I would accept a dukedom.
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
Unless I'm mistaken, Robbins did not say Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle. He said 'No.10'. The distinction is important. I suspect McSweeney. (Although if Starmer knew about it, he should have blocked it)
The prime minister concluded by saying that Sir Olly Robbins made an error of judgment, but that he is a man of integrity and professionalism. He said it is wrong that the current cabinet secretary and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office have been attacked despite doing exactly the right thing in sharing the information with the prime minister once they had gone through the correct process to do so. He said that there are thousands of hard-working civil servants across the country who are full of integrity, doing excellent work every day with a profound sense of public duty.
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
Unless I'm mistaken, Robbins did not say Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle. He said 'No.10'. The distinction is important. I suspect McSweeney. (Although if Starmer knew about it, he should have blocked it)
All we are having confirmed is Starmer has outsourced virtually everything.
It seems to me the decisions he takes himself have actually been not too bad.
The Unknown Stuntman will be off the Christmas Card list...
This is incredibly damning for Keir Starmer. Not content with appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite his links to Epstein, he tried to appoint another man with a known friendship with a sex offender. This is not just a lapse in judgment, it’s a pattern of behaviour. Every day this scandal gets worse, and it becomes clearer that the only way to draw a line under it is for Starmer to go.
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
Unless I'm mistaken, Robbins did not say Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle. He said 'No.10'. The distinction is important. I suspect McSweeney. (Although if Starmer knew about it, he should have blocked it)
All we are having confirmed is Starmer has outsourced virtually everything.
It seems to me the decisions he takes himself have actually been not too bad.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Let there be more leaks involving Starmer and Rayner
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
Unless I'm mistaken, Robbins did not say Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle. He said 'No.10'. The distinction is important. I suspect McSweeney. (Although if Starmer knew about it, he should have blocked it)
All we are having confirmed is Starmer has outsourced virtually everything.
It seems to me the decisions he takes himself have actually been not too bad.
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
Unless I'm mistaken, Robbins did not say Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle. He said 'No.10'. The distinction is important. I suspect McSweeney. (Although if Starmer knew about it, he should have blocked it)
The leaking is pretty clever in all honesty. It’s a fairly inaccurate view of events when they’re separate but it’s very effective in destroying Starmer.
I've listened to it all. The chasm in quality between the civil servants and the politicians is extreme. Everyone seems to have been at cross purposes. Olly is a class act. Keir Starmer is anything but. Emily Thornberry might have risen above it but at heart she's just another apparatchik. Starmer acted far to hastily and now looks completely wrong footed
Im afraid natural justice means Starmer should go and Labour should reset under a new leader
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
Unless I'm mistaken, Robbins did not say Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle. He said 'No.10'. The distinction is important. I suspect McSweeney. (Although if Starmer knew about it, he should have blocked it)
All we are having confirmed is Starmer has outsourced virtually everything.
It seems to me the decisions he takes himself have actually been not too bad.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
I remember back when I entered the public sector fresh from uni back in the early 1980s, one of the old lags took me aside and told me the secret to survival, which was apparently to “always keep my head down and my umbrella up”. Advice I didn’t take; I loved going around changing stuff, since it was so easy to make a positive difference, and no-one else was brave enough to even try.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
According to OR - If this fabled form with the red-box ticked exists, it was under the strict control of the Cabinet Office - they owned it, but it was so sensitive they needed to co-ordinate with the FO if they could even look at the UKSV documents. That limits the pool of likely leakers.
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
And you don"t think this is bad for Starmer ?
I’ve done multiple headers saying this is bad for Starmer but there’s no smoking gun either today or yesterday that forces Starmer out.
I said doubts must be on how long Starmer survives which seems to be quite a consensus not that Starmer is forced out
I expect post May 8th the pressure will grow from his own mps looking at their future prospects
We're all too close to this - I shouldn't think more than 2% of the population is absorbing all the details. The underlying political issue remains that Starmer is unpopular (whether fairly or not) and has few allies, but that there is no obvious replacement in Parliament. Nothing much will happen that engages the wider public before the local elections in two weeks. If those are awful for Labour I'd expect a challenge which is likely to succeed. If they aren't all that bad then the Waiting for Bunham pattern will probably enable Starmer to carry on.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
According to OR - If this fabled form with the red-box ticked exists, it was under the strict control of the Cabinet Office - they owned it, but it was so sensitive they needed to co-ordinate with the FO if they could even look at the UKSV documents. That limits the pool of likely leakers.
Its still amazing that the Indy journalist knew 7 months ago, who then informed the comms director of #10. So its the second time information on this extremely sensitive topic has leaked.
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
Senior politicians in shock at realising that their civil servants simply see them as the latest short-run intrusion into their career-long destiny to run the country themselves, on our behalf.
Welcome to the world of every local councillor who serves more than a term and is paying any attention.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Perhaps the same sort of person that might set fire to a Cambridge pet shop in order to be allowed to join a uni private dining club? Not that I can think of any actual person who might do such a terrible thing. We should be thankful that all of our senior politicians today have better morality than that.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
According to OR - If this fabled form with the red-box ticked exists, it was under the strict control of the Cabinet Office - they owned it, but it was so sensitive they needed to co-ordinate with the FO if they could even look at the UKSV documents. That limits the pool of likely leakers.
Remember when the security video from a minister’s office was given to the press?
Strangely, the civil service enquiry never found out who did it.
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
And you don"t think this is bad for Starmer ?
I’ve done multiple headers saying this is bad for Starmer but there’s no smoking gun either today or yesterday that forces Starmer out.
I said doubts must be on how long Starmer survives which seems to be quite a consensus not that Starmer is forced out
I expect post May 8th the pressure will grow from his own mps looking at their future prospects
We're all too close to this - I shouldn't think more than 2% of the population is absorbing all the details. The underlying political issue remains that Starmer is unpopular (whether fairly or not) and has few allies, but that there is no obvious replacement in Parliament. Nothing much will happen that engages the wider public before the local elections in two weeks. If those are awful for Labour I'd expect a challenge which is likely to succeed. If they aren't all that bad then the Waiting for Bunham pattern will probably enable Starmer to carry on.
Not only that- the vast majority of those two percent made their minds up about Starmer long ago. In the meantime, the relevant bit of history to search for a rhyme looks like John Major. Things that can't possibly carry on can carry in for as long as there isn't an agreed alternative.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
According to OR - If this fabled form with the red-box ticked exists, it was under the strict control of the Cabinet Office - they owned it, but it was so sensitive they needed to co-ordinate with the FO if they could even look at the UKSV documents. That limits the pool of likely leakers.
Remember when the security video from a minister’s office was given to the press?
Strangely, the civil service enquiry never found out who did it.
Who needs a giant Chinese spy centre in the heart of London when insiders do all the leaking for free either from gross incompontence of their use of electronic devices or having to screw over a government minister they don't like.
A question I asked a number of times. Somebody keeps leaking some very key bits of information (that very few people could know) that drops Starmer (and the same with Big Ange) in the shit. Who and why. And they do by by leaking to a variety of newpapers.
Could be someone, or it could be that they have pissed off a number of people so a number of people are leaking.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
Who ever it is, it always seems to be a person / people with access to the sort of information that only a very tight group of people would know. Quite different from usual leaks via the civil service where a document gets leaked that 10s / 100s of people will have had access to.
According to OR - If this fabled form with the red-box ticked exists, it was under the strict control of the Cabinet Office - they owned it, but it was so sensitive they needed to co-ordinate with the FO if they could even look at the UKSV documents. That limits the pool of likely leakers.
I wonder if this red tick box even exists, or whether it is a mock up, sent to the Guardian. It was so secret that even Robbins, who had been central to security matters, had never seen it. Is it possible that no-one had ever seen it except the person who mocked it up and sent it to the Guardian?
In utterly separate news I’ve just had Amazon’s customer service bot give me a refund without human intervention for some missing items in an order - I’m surprised that it’s trusted to approve things for the amount refunded without checks.
Mind you I dread to think how much I spend at Amazon if refunding £x0 without comment is automatic on just my say so
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
I remember back when I entered the public sector fresh from uni back in the early 1980s, one of the old lags took me aside and told me the secret to survival, which was apparently to “always keep my head down and my umbrella up”. Advice I didn’t take; I loved going around changing stuff, since it was so easy to make a positive difference, and no-one else was brave enough to even try.
My old flatmate had the same approach at the FCO. He wasn't very diplomatic for a diplomat and thrived on plain speaking, but his career thrived on it too. Both senior diplomats and ministers found his blunt approach refreshing, though they did tailor his assignments to his skills.
He manged to dodge Brexit related assignments as a result to. The Ministets didn't want to hear his sort of plain speaking about their half baked plans and poor preparation.
Had my fourth lot of literature through for the County Council. 2 x LD, 1 X Ref and 1 x Con who i think will be the only three in with any shot (Green and Labour also standing). LDs very bar charty in one, the other is a local paper type thing Reform is a Nigel leaflet, nothing on the candidate Conservative all on the candidate and doesnt mention Conservatives in general at all so the opposite approach.
In utterly separate news I’ve just had Amazon’s customer service bot give me a refund without human intervention for some missing items in an order - I’m surprised that it’s trusted to approve things for the amount refunded without checks.
Mind you I dread to think how much I spend at Amazon if refunding £x0 without comment is automatic on just my say so
Amazon can be surprisingly generous. More than once I've had refunds for items and been told to keep the product/throw it away. Also had a free iPhone 15 from them. The first iPhone went missing. They dispatched a replacement. A fortnight later, when the first iPhone arrived, I got in touch and explained what happened. They said keep it.
I could criticise Amazon for a great many things but I've always found their customer service to be exemplary. Even on the one occasion that I escalated it to Jeff Bezos directly (I kid you not), the response (and generosity) was superb.
In utterly separate news I’ve just had Amazon’s customer service bot give me a refund without human intervention for some missing items in an order - I’m surprised that it’s trusted to approve things for the amount refunded without checks.
Mind you I dread to think how much I spend at Amazon if refunding £x0 without comment is automatic on just my say so
Amazon can be surprisingly generous. More than once I've had refunds for items and been told to keep the product/throw it away. Also had a free iPhone 15 from them. The first iPhone went missing. They dispatched a replacement. A fortnight later, when the first iPhone arrived, I got in touch and explained what happened. They said keep it.
I could criticise Amazon for a great many things but I've always found their customer service to be exemplary. Even on the one occasion that I escalated it to Jeff Bezos directly (I kid you not), the response (and generosity) was superb.
Indeed. If you spend with them over a period, they know that looking after you makes sense
It’s a shame Robbins was sacked as the whole saga seems to have been more one of a misunderstanding re how the process works .
The media though would have decided that Robbins was trying to save his job if he had now said Mandelson hadn’t failed the UKVS security .
And if he hadn’t been sacked I doubt he would have said “ lots of pressure on the foreign office “ line .
The media have decided on the narrative and seem to have ignored that Robbins stated no one in No 10 was told originally about any issues . The original sin whatever people think of Starmer has been disproved .
I’m by no means defending Starmer who made a terrible decision to appoint Mandelson to begin with but the media coverage has been totally biased .
In utterly separate news I’ve just had Amazon’s customer service bot give me a refund without human intervention for some missing items in an order - I’m surprised that it’s trusted to approve things for the amount refunded without checks.
Mind you I dread to think how much I spend at Amazon if refunding £x0 without comment is automatic on just my say so
Amazon can be surprisingly generous. More than once I've had refunds for items and been told to keep the product/throw it away. Also had a free iPhone 15 from them. The first iPhone went missing. They dispatched a replacement. A fortnight later, when the first iPhone arrived, I got in touch and explained what happened. They said keep it.
I could criticise Amazon for a great many things but I've always found their customer service to be exemplary. Even on the one occasion that I escalated it to Jeff Bezos directly (I kid you not), the response (and generosity) was superb.
Amazon’s customer service is usually outstanding. They do such massive volumes, and their logistics really isn’t set up to do thousands of returns of low-value items.
Provided you don’t make a habit of returning laptops or other high-end electricals, they’re very unquestioning.
Borderline , more likely 10% good , 90% bad , that sounds borderline we should give him a pass
Since this chap Robbins is currently unemployed, perhaps the FA should offer him a job as a soccer referee. Ball 10% in, 90% out - 60,000 fans screaming for it go their way - 'yeah, give it a pass'.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
That’s the sort of thing where you would expect the head of MI6 to turn up at No.10 with a personal briefing file for the PM.
Though that rather feels like the "there's a secret door and the government ninjas are behind there" expectation.
Consider the stuff that only came out in the Epstain email dump. Either MI6 knew about that and did nothing, or (more likely) they didn't know.
(ETA: I considered altering the Epstein typo, but it felt so apposite that I left it in.)
It would also be useful to know if, anywhere in the process of appointing Mandy, the Americans had been asked what they had on him?
The revelations that led to his firing came from the US, so what else did they have?
It isn’t usual, is it, to ask the country you’re sending an ambassador to if they have any dirt on him.
Good question. I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that, but would expect a friendly nation to mention if they thought him unsuitable because of his links to unfriendly nations.
The Trump administration pushed back on Mandelson because of his perceived closeness to the EU.
The prime minister concluded by saying that Sir Olly Robbins made an error of judgment, but that he is a man of integrity and professionalism. He said it is wrong that the current cabinet secretary and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office have been attacked despite doing exactly the right thing in sharing the information with the prime minister once they had gone through the correct process to do so. He said that there are thousands of hard-working civil servants across the country who are full of integrity, doing excellent work every day with a profound sense of public duty.
And that is why I immediately sacked him....
So, is he saying there are hundreds of thousands who are lazy liars?
I didn't find it at all devastating. Kevin Maguire is a drama queen and always has been. Try listening on a different channel
I have listened to all of Robbins testimony and it is damning in so many ways even you must now have doubts how long Starmer survives
Maquire is a mirror journalist
The day ends in a y and you’ll say it is bad for Starmer.
And you don"t think this is bad for Starmer ?
I’ve done multiple headers saying this is bad for Starmer but there’s no smoking gun either today or yesterday that forces Starmer out.
Lord TSE, what’s your central protection for Starmer leaving year and most likely successor?
I will cover this in the morning thread.
Lord TSE, thank you for your quick reply.
I noticed your comment elsewhere on Vodafone. It is is quite evident the Three brand will cease to be fairly soon, Vodafone will buy out Hutchison’s share and Vodafone will be all that is left.
"Lord TSE" ???? Has there been a new peerage we've missed. Well deserved if so!😂 Order of the Shoe-in?
I would never accept a mere lordship, I would accept a dukedom.
Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives (called either delegates or resident commissioner, in the case of Puerto Rico) are representatives of their territory in the House of Representatives, who do not have a right to vote on legislation in the full House but nevertheless have floor privileges and are able to participate in certain other House functions. Non-voting members may introduce legislation and may vote in a House committee of which they are a member.
(For the record: I have long favored returning the District of Columbia to Maryland and Virginia, other, of course, than the key parts of the federal govenment.)
So I listened to all of that. Absolutely fascinating insight into the machine. Robbins came over as impressive, truthful, and a good egg. My conclusion is he did little or nothing wrong. He did his level best to reconcile due process with the express desire of his political masters to achieve their objective of getting Mandelson to Washington in time for the start of Trump2, the appointment already having been announced and cleared with the US. The guy has been scapegoated in a way that is weak, panicky and dishonourable. I don't know if it means Starmer has to go this year rather than next year (my book hopes not!) but whatever happens on that front this reflects badly on him. It's a poor show.
I can't imagine anybody who listened to this morning's meeting would conclude that this is someone who was trying to hide something from his political masters. I think the impression was that this was someone who was operating with exceptional competence and found a way to reconcile Number 10's wishes with the assessment that he was responsible for. And that required him to give Mandelson a pass with mitigations in place to protect the UK Government and indeed Mandelson himself.
The idea that he should be sacked for this is risible and enormously diminishes Starmer in my eyes. This wasn't a quasi political figure like Sue Gray or Morgan McSweeney. He was a Civil Servant doing his job to the best of his considerable ability. It is, in my view, an even more disgraceful decision than appointing Mandelson in the first place.
So I listened to all of that. Absolutely fascinating insight into the machine. Robbins came over as impressive, truthful, and a good egg. My conclusion is he did little or nothing wrong. He did his level best to reconcile due process with the express desire of his political masters to achieve their objective of getting Mandelson to Washington in time for the start of Trump2, the appointment already having been announced and cleared with the US. The guy has been scapegoated in a way that is weak, panicky and dishonourable. I don't know if it means Starmer has to go this year rather than next year (my book hopes not!) but whatever happens on that front this reflects badly on him. It's a poor show.
I can't imagine anybody who listened to this morning's meeting would conclude that this is someone who was trying to hide something from his political masters. I think the impression was that this was someone who was operating with exceptional competence and found a way to reconcile Number 10's wishes with the assessment that he was responsible for. And that required him to give Mandelson a pass with mitigations in place to protect the UK Government and indeed Mandelson himself.
The idea that he should be sacked for this is risible and enormously diminishes Starmer in my eyes. This wasn't a quasi political figure like Sue Gray or Morgan McSweeney. He was a Civil Servant doing his job to the best of his considerable ability. It is, in my view, an even more disgraceful decision than appointing Mandelson in the first place.
I don't think I can agree. This is not binary - there doesn't have to be one guilty party and one non-guilty party. Robbins may have faced undue pressure to get Mandelson approved - I am sure he did. But he still made a decision that he would not share the outcome of the vetting process with those responsible for the appointment. He chose to sweep it under the carpet and put in place some fairly risible mitigations for the sake of a quiet life. He is now portraying his actions as correct and like Starmer (though being a civil servant, it is probably more understandable) he is fetishising process and ignoring the fact that he made a poor judgement that could have damaged the national interest.
It is probably right to claim that the appointees should not know the granular detail of vetting - but to try and extend this to them not knowing the *outcome* of the vetting process is ludicrous.
Comments
If you get it wrong you get it right next time…..
I’ve put the most money on Streeting and Burnham.
The Mail, Express, Telegraph etc are much better at being loyal to their party than the Mirror and Grauniad. So the meaning is different- when a right wing hack tears into a Conservative, it's really serious. A left-wing hack doing the same to a Labour type is more 'dog bites man'.
Louise Haigh strikingly urges Starmer to come up with new plan to reform “unsustainable” welfare spending
“The projections are inconceivable at the moment, so we really want to encourage the government to come back and engage with the PLP” on how to make it “sustainable”
BFD.
None of which I would mind, if they were halfway competent and weren't intent on pricing UK households out of the domestic energy market.
Yvette Cooper says she is 'extremely concerned' about the claim by Olly Robbins that Starmer tried to appoint Matthew Doyle, his then comms director, as an ambassador without informing her predecessor
'I was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
'I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
'I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment'
I expect post May 8th the pressure will grow from his own mps looking at their future prospects
Plus given the hype and she doesn’t oust Starmer then people will compare her to Neil Kinnock and the Westland debate.
This is a key takeaway from the a journalist at The Sunday Times.
So Mandelson didn’t fail developed vetting? It was a borderline case and Robbins went with yes. What is this all even about?
https://x.com/joshglancy/status/2046508607940833624?s=46
I noticed your comment elsewhere on Vodafone. It is is quite evident the Three brand will cease to be fairly soon, Vodafone will buy out Hutchison’s share and Vodafone will be all that is left.
Hence the amount of leaks, and the variety of papers.
Plus once credibility has gone and there's a culture of leaking, then its very easy when aggrieved to choose to leak yourself having seen others get away with doing so.
(Although if Starmer knew about it, he should have blocked it)
And that is why I immediately sacked him....
It seems to me the decisions he takes himself have actually been not too bad.
This is incredibly damning for Keir Starmer. Not content with appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite his links to Epstein, he tried to appoint another man with a known friendship with a sex offender. This is not just a lapse in judgment, it’s a pattern of behaviour. Every day this scandal gets worse, and it becomes clearer that the only way to draw a line under it is for Starmer to go.
Im afraid natural justice means Starmer should go and Labour should reset under a new leader
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15745485/Megabucks-cartel-boss-Daniel-Kinahan-blindsided-Dubai-police-swooped-make-dramatic-arrest-gangster-one-FATAL-mistake.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-labour-charged-investigation-vote-rigging-croydon-east-b1279427.html#
Welcome to the world of every local councillor who serves more than a term and is paying any attention.
Schrödinger's Strait: Is It Open or Closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJp306tV94
Strangely, the civil service enquiry never found out who did it.
https://x.com/jbulltard1/status/2046560344105984379?s=61
It was so secret that even Robbins, who had been central to security matters, had never seen it.
Is it possible that no-one had ever seen it except the person who mocked it up and sent it to the Guardian?
Mind you I dread to think how much I spend at Amazon if refunding £x0 without comment is automatic on just my say so
He manged to dodge Brexit related assignments as a result to. The Ministets didn't want to hear his sort of plain speaking about their half baked plans and poor preparation.
Of itself that makes Starmer look venal, petty and Johnsonian.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43944988
LDs very bar charty in one, the other is a local paper type thing
Reform is a Nigel leaflet, nothing on the candidate
Conservative all on the candidate and doesnt mention Conservatives in general at all so the opposite approach.
TRUMP: "I would have won Vietnam very quickly"
I could criticise Amazon for a great many things but I've always found their customer service to be exemplary. Even on the one occasion that I escalated it to Jeff Bezos directly (I kid you not), the response (and generosity) was superb.
The media though would have decided that Robbins was trying to save his job if he had now said Mandelson hadn’t failed the UKVS security .
And if he hadn’t been sacked I doubt he would have said “ lots of pressure on the foreign office “ line .
The media have decided on the narrative and seem to have ignored that Robbins stated no one in No 10 was told originally about any issues . The original sin whatever people think of Starmer has been disproved .
I’m by no means defending Starmer who made a terrible decision to appoint Mandelson to begin with but the media coverage has been totally biased .
In fact, she seems to have been used (for a second time) as a human shield by May to conceal her own errors.
Provided you don’t make a habit of returning laptops or other high-end electricals, they’re very unquestioning.
NEW THREAD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMEE6d7nHQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States
DC also has a non-voting representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton: https://norton.house.gov/
She's one of six: (For the record: I have long favored returning the District of Columbia to Maryland and Virginia, other, of course, than the key parts of the federal govenment.)
The idea that he should be sacked for this is risible and enormously diminishes Starmer in my eyes. This wasn't a quasi political figure like Sue Gray or Morgan McSweeney. He was a Civil Servant doing his job to the best of his considerable ability. It is, in my view, an even more disgraceful decision than appointing Mandelson in the first place.
It is probably right to claim that the appointees should not know the granular detail of vetting - but to try and extend this to them not knowing the *outcome* of the vetting process is ludicrous.